To find better lives gays mostly concentrated in certain larger cities, mainly near the East or on West Coasts. To a lesser degree safety and entrepreneurial activities were also available in certain large southern or mid-western cities. After concentrating in politically important national US cities, gays could organize and did so with relative speed.

Gays' court-case victories, however, dismay more than just religious extremists, whose key objections are that homosexuality is an abomination to God and that marriage should be between only the two sexes. Many dismayed secular people also wonder what the Hell is going on.

Without denying that society might gain if gays had some kind of formal partnership, there is also no denying that conventional marriage benefits society in ways that gay marriage never can. Many will object that when half or more conventional marriages end in divorce, conventional marriage seems not that beneficial to society. For those that fail that is true, but conventional marriages that last benefit society more than either conventional marriages that fail or more than unconventional marriages that last.

In western culture, learning to be an adult male or adult female, means little boys and little girls must learn to deal well with two markets, so to speak--their own and the opposite sex. Little boys learn to be men mostly from their fathers [or some other available, concerned male]. They learn best from their mothers to be men dealing well with women. Little girls learn to be women mostly from their mothers, but they also learn to deal with men from their fathers. With so much divorce in the US and in divorces where girls rarely see their fathers, girls still get most of what they need. Boys from such divorced families, however, really show noticeable lack of interactive knowhow with their own sex, unless some other concerned male [usually an uncle or grandfather] was available. Feminization of US males--straight ones--is no small problem.

Going forward we have more straight girls not so good with men and more straight boys not so good at being men either. This further bleakens conventional marriage's outlook.

Non-crazies against gay-marriage are dumbfounded. If they can ever get organized, finding their voice will take a while. Their neighborhoods are not as concentrated with like-minded people. The US should expect a backlash to legalizing a variety of marriage that lacks support in normal biology and in most straight communities. 'Normal' here describes how most members of either sex function.

Without spelling it out, these Sup Ct decisions' implications are huge. Previously, we in the US believed that the State was a creature of and no greater than the people [As in We the People . . . forming a union (for our own benefit)]. With these decisions, the State has become apart from and above its people. So the Sup Ct can ignore wishes of voters in states against gay marriage, because the State [the Sup Ct, in this context] decides the majority have no stake in a case that says gay marriages are equal to conventional ones.

If this is true, the State can make polygamy equal to monogamy and decide many other cases against prevailing custom and culture.

Finally, without saying it in so many words, these cases say the State is above the people [or their descendants] who founded the State, even when a majority of those people do not want ame sex partnerships equal to conventional marriage.

It now seems possible that any minority can bring a case to legitimize its cultural preferences and sweep away the majority's cultural preferences, knowing the majority will be told to get lost, because it is not a party to the case, and because the State decides what is best for the majority.

My statistics are not iron-clad and I recall an MD psychiatrist saying that gay men are 2% of all men and gay women are 0.5% of all women. Altogether, that averages to 1.25% of all people. Memories fade and my word here is only hearsay.

But during the Clinton Admin, the 2% figure also bubbled to the surface, before interested parties did all possible to suppress such a thought.

"Two percent?!" many will ask. "Just look at large cities, where gays are way over 2%!" It is still possible that most people in Rep Pelosi's district could be gay, when 2% from the countryside, 2% from the many small towns, and 2% from numerous jerkwater cities concentrate in certain large urban areas and in land's ends like Provincetown, Fire Island, the Hamptons, and Key West.

To be heard and taken seriously, conventional people against equal marriage for gays must be ready to allow gays some kind of partnership--preferably one easier to enter and leave than conventional marriage, where the personal, property, and social stakes are higher.

This isn't about a minority having too much clout, this is about striking down a federal law that discriminates against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens just like you.
Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, it is clearly unconstitutional for Edith Windsor to be required to pay $365,000 in federal taxes only because her spouse was not a man in state where their marriage was legally recognized.
Worry about cultural effects all you like, but please don't argue that DOMA was a good piece of legislation as you seem to imply.

I wrote somewhat in haste. Federal law, DOMA, says the National Govt will not recognize same-sex marriages, after the states had never in the first place relinquished control over marriage of any kind to the National Government.

You are right about DOMA's unconstitutionality.

Naturally, practically none thirty years ago, ever imagined same-sex marriage as a possibility. In 1789, even fewer. Our more perfect union mentioned nothing like marriage, just as it mentioned nothing about privacy [Sorry, departed Justice Douglas, contriver of Griswold v. Connecticut!]. A Constitutional amendment referendum in favor of privacy would have been a better approach, rather than Douglas's contortions. It would very likely have passed in all states too.

My law-schoolmate and fraternity brother, Wm O Douglas was brilliant as a student and in his brief legal practice too. As a Sup Ct Justice, however, he saw himself as a social engineer. To him the State was an all-powerful mother hen superior to all her citizen chicks. Rather than well-reasoned, his opinions were snappy slogans, which on closer look gave very little clear guidance.

I hope your strict construction on this matter applies equally to all other like questions.

Some of us regard judges' roles as keeping the government on the rails, not in laying new track. Laying new track is for state or national legislatures. Or for referenda. If a referendum is not passed, then don't keep trying or extending it.

The bigger concern is whether the State (USA or individual states) was created for its citizens' benefit, or whether citizens are minor components whose wishes the State's elected or appointed officials can cherry-pick at will.

California's citizens voted against same-sex marriages, but its state government did nothing to support the law. Strictly speaking then, if the latest Sup Ct decision leaves marriage in states' hands, why did the State of California (Governor and Atty Gen) lose no time in telling counties, justices of the peace, and licensed clergy that same-sex marriages were legal? If most California citizens do not want same-sex partnerships fully equal to conventional marriages, who are Jerry Brown or Kamala Harris to tell them, "Screw you!"?

I wish I could agree with your post. Not adhering to the letter of the Constitution is a slippery slope. However sometimes the potentially slippery slope must be essayed.

Had we relied on the states to do the right thing we would still have Jim Crow if not outright slavery. Women would probably not have the vote or [nearly] equal rights. Workers would not be able to protect themselves by collective bargaining. Finally [thanks to a really great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt] monopolies would never have been broken up or prohibited nor the wealthy forced to leave some crumbs for the rest.

We are backsliding fast on some of these advances, particularly the last. And for that I find fault with this court, though it is not as bad [yet] as the Taney court.

Slavery would not have ended when it did had the states been counted on to end it.

Jim Crow would very likely still be with us, if the Federal Government did not make Jim Crow states stop.

TR did a magnificent thing.

The Federal Government legalized collective bargaining.

Slavery and Jim Crow definitely undermined western values.

Trust busting evened up matters between certain suppliers and customers.

Legalized collective bargaining evened up power between employers and workers.

The latter two, economic adjustments align less directly with our cultural values, but any arrangement where most of the pie goes to a small group invites abuse, discontent, and prevents civil society or breaks down any already existing. Think Arabia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, China, many former Soviet satellites in Asia, the list goes on. Calling some of our allies democracies is a hypocritical fiction.

From all I have noted, marriage between sexes is already challenged enough as literature and popular comment bear out.
Read Milton's complaints on marriage.

In the West, same-sex marriages between willing partners were always easy to enter. As population mobility grew, not well-acquainted couples could grievously err, straining marriage more. That same-sex marriages were once harder to leave, had plusses and minusses. The difficulty of leaving's was to encourage partners to work things out. The minus was to trap partners in hopeless arrangements, not ended without great effort.

In the West, or at least in the US where we hear all is free, marriage is easy-in, easy-out. When conventional marriage works, it benefits society greatly. Most people are straight. Straights marry other straights. If they have children, work out any differences, and stay married, then statistically their children tend to be better adjusted by a huge margin. Some can protest, but facts refute their protest.

Same-sex marriage says marriage is for any and all, strengthening today's attitude that marriage is really no big deal and should be allowed between two anythings. As one commenter asked--what next? How much further can we stretch the boundaries of an institution already on the ropes?

In fairness, it should be said some gays of super ability contributed more than their fair share to society. Think Turing, Keynes, Bernstein, Tschaikowsky, da Vinci, Michaelangelo, etc.

And being against gay marriage does not equate with letting others beat or kill gays with impunity as in, Houston, my former domicile. Just no special status either, where I put same-sex marriage.

For all the lustrous names named, lustrous straights far out number lustrous gays simply because ability does not correlate with sexual orientation and straights far outnumber gays. Special PR tries to suggest gays have special ability.

Preserving a shaky institution for the straight majority seems sounder than extending it to a gay minority as a feel-good or as an economic incentive.

Hard to tell what gays want. At times, they claim to be just like everybody else, yet when convenient want to be special in every way. Then other times, economic subsidies to conventional marriage become fundamental rights that gays demand. Is money or spiritual union the motive? Where did all of spiritual union's weepy specialness suddenly fly?

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. While I can't speak for all gay men, here's what I want: the same rights as any other American citizen. If I live in a state that recognizes my same-sex marriage, then I want all the federal rights and responsibilities that you enjoy.
One example: if you are married and die, your spouse likely qualifies for Social Security Survivor benefits. After all, you probably paid into SS all your working life. Well, I've been paying into SS all MY working life, why should my spouse not have the same benefit as your spouse? Because he was married to a man?
In my view, it's got nothing to do with morals or deservedness, it's got to do with equality. Your citizenship shouldn't be worth more than mine.

The Sup Ct just granted your wish, denying the Federal Govt the right [thru DOMA] to tell states, allowing same-sex marriage, that the Fed Govt would not recognize same-sex marriages. That is a legally and legally consistent interpretation of the Constitution as the original 13 states did not surrender control of marriage to the Union.

The Sup Ct went even further overruling California's Prop Eight. So in that way the Sup Ct told California's voters "Tough darts!"

That overreach let the interests of NY State's few overcome the interests of CA's many.

May I remark on the subconscious corrupt motivations of some, the problems of those with the tax and spend mentality:-
(1) the ever growing sense of entitlement;
(2) the ever growing deficits of the world;
(3) the laws of physics;
(4) climate change;
(5) the limit on how much heat can in fact be radiated away from the planet earth interpreted as black body radiation of a spherelike object of mostly iron of earth's dimensions according to the laws of thermodynamics!!!!!!

The entitlement mentality is capable of changing not only laws but also getting propaganda into the economist blogs and getting their way with court rulings by activist judges ... therefore may I implore the congress urgently to consider legislating to deprive every last childless couple such of the 1100 rights of married couples that, in the sincere opinion of the congress, be a right that rightly and mootly and justly is a right accruing to married parents!

In other words the congress implored to consider legislating to divvy up the 1100 odd rights of married couples, starting with an omnibus bill listing several hundred as rights properly accruing to parents who are charged with the costs and responsibilities of raising the next generation i.e. children of our species, not pet cats and dogs and goldfish ...